Tom Harris: I reassure my hon. Friend that Southeastern has not removed zone 3 from its ticket prices on north Kent services. However, may I commend him on identifying that omission and bringing it to my attention? I am informed that the company made an error in implementing London zonal fares, which affected zone three, and I can confirm that that error has now been corrected.

Tom Harris: I agree with my hon. Friend. Let me repeat that the high level output specification, which the Government will publish in the summer, will specify the capacity that we wish to buy from the rail industry in 2009-14. We will also state the funds available for that.

Bridget Prentice: My hon. Friend makes an important point. My right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of State, Department for Constitutional Affairs, whose policy area covers magistrates, is aware of the diversity needed in the magistrates court, as is the Magistrates' Association, of which I have been a member for some time.

Alan Beith: Will the Minister consider the evidence that the Constitutional Affairs Committee is hearing week by week, not just from barristers and solicitors but judges and others, including representations from the president of the family division, about the likely impact on the availability of family law practitioners? Is she ready to make alterations to the timing and content of the proposals in the light of some of that evidence?

Bridget Prentice: This is an issue that divides us in a cross-party sense. I have a good deal of sympathy with the hon. Lady's argument for voting rights at 16, but I know that many Members feel very differently about it.
	This morning I was at Greenford high school in Ealing discussing this very topic with students on their citizens' jury. They were divided 50-50 on it. I think that before we could implement such a measure we would need more than a 50 per cent. enthusiasm rate from the people to whom we would be extending the franchise.

Bridget Prentice: I speak to young people throughout the country—and to others about the views of young people—and the idea that young people are apathetic about politics is nonsense. They take a keen interest in many of the important political issues of the day. They might not, however, like some of what they see on television with regard to how the political process works, and I have sympathy with them on that. Members of this House must work very hard in engaging with young people on the issues that are important to them and in finding ways in which they can express their opinions and get them heard. In my constituency, the London borough of Lewisham has an elected young mayor who has a budget from the council which is used to involve young people between the ages of 11 and 17 in the electoral process. I think that we might want to extend that example to elsewhere in the country.

Bridget Prentice: The hon. Gentleman makes some valid points about the issues associated with reducing the voting age to 16, such as whether young people would participate, but I do not accept that reducing the voting age to 16 would automatically mean that a much smaller number of people would take part in elections; in fact, it might be a way to get young people further engaged. The Electoral Administration Act 2006 reduced the candidacy age from 21 to 18, and we can to look to that example to see whether we can properly involve more young people in the democratic process by electing them at local—and, indeed, parliamentary—level.

Tessa Jowell: With permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the recommendations of the independent casino advisory panel. The panel has today published its report, and I would like to thank Professor Crow and his colleagues for their work. Before I turn to the recommendations, I would like to remind the House of the context in which we are allowing these new types of casinos.
	Gambling is on the increase. People want to gamble, and technology allows many new forms of gambling. Existing regulation is inadequate and leaves people exposed to risk, so, through the Gambling Act 2005, we have placed the protection of children and other vulnerable people at the heart of gambling regulation for the first time. Yet if I believed everything that I read in the newspapers about that Act, I would never have introduced it. So let me be very clear: Las Vegas is not coming to Great Britain. British casinos will be subject to new controls, which will be the strictest in the world. For example, Las Vegas-style tricks of the trade will not be allowed. There will be no free alcohol to induce more gambling, and no pumped oxygen to keep players awake —[Interruption.] I do not know whether you are considering providing it for Conservative Members, Mr. Speaker.
	It will be a criminal offence to permit a child to enter a casino or the gambling area of a regional casino. All casinos will be required to have staff who are trained to spot the signs of problem gambling and intervene where necessary—if they do not, they risk losing their licence. It was safe in the knowledge of those protections that we took the decision, in response to demand from local authorities, to allow a limited number of new casinos. Some 68 local authorities, representing all the main political parties, subsequently made applications to the panel.
	The Act allows 17 casinos in total, one regional, eight large and eight small. Because the new casinos will be different from those we have seen before, we have listened carefully to the concerns of Members of Parliament and their constituents. We thought that it was right to be cautious. I could probably say this in 50 different languages, but the message would be the same: we cannot and will not even consider allowing further casinos until a proper evaluation over time has been made of the social and economic effects of the 17 casinos —[ Interruption. ]

Tessa Jowell: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
	Such a decision would require a debate and vote in both Houses of Parliament in any case. We have commissioned a group of academics led by Lancaster university to advise on the methodology for that assessment. The baseline study will be undertaken later this year, once Parliament has approved the new areas, so that proper assessment of changes in the pattern of gambling can be made. The assessment process will be in place in good time for the opening of the first new casino.
	The assessment will not be complete until at least three years after the award of the first licence, and it will be in addition to the prevalence studies of patterns of gambling, which we are undertaking every three years from 2007. The benchmark prevalence study is currently under way to establish how many people gamble and what proportion of them have problems with their gambling. The findings will be published this autumn, when the Gambling Act 2005 takes effect. The findings of the next prevalence study will not be published until autumn 2010. I therefore wish to make it crystal clear to the House that those safeguards preclude any consideration of further casinos for the lifetime of this Parliament.
	I am required by the Act to make an order identifying the local authorities where the 17 new casinos should go. So, in October last year I established the casino advisory panel, under Professor Stephen Crow. The primary consideration for the panel throughout has been to ensure that the areas facilitate the best possible test of social impact. Subject to that consideration, I also asked the panel to include areas in need of regeneration, which would benefit—in terms of new jobs—from a new casino, and to ensure that those areas selected are willing to license a new casino.
	The panel has been operating entirely independently of the Government, and I would like to place on the record my appreciation for the rigour and professionalism that Professor Crow and his colleagues have brought to the process. It has been an open and transparent process throughout, and the views of local people have been taken into account at every stage, as the panel has visited different local authorities around the country.
	The panel asked local authorities to include their evidence of local consultation. Local people were invited to participate in the examinations in public that were held in the seven short-listed areas for the regional casino. During the process, a number of areas, including Brent, Canterbury, Dartford, Thurrock and Woking, withdrew their applications to the panel in response to local opinion, which is evidence of the Act working as it should. A number of local authorities, such as Hackney, St. Albans and Slough, have also taken advantage of new powers we put in the Act and resolved not to licences any casinos in their area.
	After 16 months of consultation, and having considered all the evidence available, the panel has recommended today that the following authorities should be entitled to issue a small casino premises licence: Bath and North East Somerset, Dumfries and Galloway, East Lindsey, Luton, Scarborough, Swansea, Torbay and Wolverhampton.
	The panel also recommends that the following local authorities should be entitled to issue a large casino premises licence: Great Yarmouth, Kingston-upon-Hull, Leeds, Middlesbrough, Milton Keynes, Newham, Solihull and Southampton. In addition, it recommends that Manchester should be entitled to issue the one regional casino premises licence permitted by the 2005 Act. I congratulate Manchester and the other recommended towns and cities on their success, and I acknowledge the disappointment of those towns and cities that have not been recommended.
	I received a copy of the panel's report just this morning. Because I am conscious of the need to maintain the integrity of the independent process that we have established, it is only fair to all the applicants that I should take the time to consider the report's contents carefully. Moreover, I am also required by the Gambling Act 2005 to consult both Scottish and Welsh Ministers. I am therefore announcing today that, following the consultation with the devolved Administrations, I am minded to return to this House at the earliest opportunity with an order that will enable Parliament to consider the panel's recommendations and to vote on them. The order will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure and the debate will be held on the Floor of the House, as agreed with my right hon. Friend the Chief Whip. That means that Parliament, rightly, will determine the outcome of the process.
	In conclusion, I recognise that gambling will always be a sensitive issue, and I understand the reservations that some hon. Members and others have about it, and about casinos. However, I have always sought to ensure that the Government proceed cautiously on this matter, with the strongest possible safeguards in place and on the basis of the best evidence of public protection in the face of what is, undeniably, rising public demand. That is what is we have done.
	Once again, I thank Professor Crow and his panel for the thoroughness of their work, and I commend this statement to the House.

Tessa Jowell: I am inclined to believe that the hon. Gentleman must have gone to sleep during my statement, as I could not have dealt more clearly with four of his questions; nor could I have been clearer about the Government's determination to ensure that proper protection is put in place and that tackling problem gambling, which arises from the many increased opportunities for gambling, is one of the central objectives of the new legislation. That will make us the most toughly regulated gambling regime in the world, apart from countries that ban gambling altogether.
	I take two thirds of what the hon. Gentleman said in the vein that he was desperately scrabbling around to find something to say. Of course, Manchester will carry out a fair and open competition for the licence. The hon. Gentleman, with the protection of the House, should stop using this situation as an opportunity for smear and innuendo, which is not what we expect of him. Yes, there will be a vote in both Houses on the affirmative resolution, and yes, I have been absolutely clear throughout that any decision in a subsequent Parliament to increase the number of regional or any other casinos would be a vote of both Houses. This is a decision for Parliament and will remain so.
	In relation to the claim that there is no interest in casinos, I recall from memory that 131 local authorities expressed an interest and we had 68 applications, with 27 local authorities submitting applications for the single large regional casino. It is ridiculous to suggest that the proposal is somehow being foisted by the Government on unwilling local authorities, which are considerably more imaginative and in tune with their local populations than the hon. Gentleman is.
	Let me finish by saying that although the hon. Gentleman talks about the consents awarded before the 1968 Gaming Board licences were terminated in April last year, 13 of those applications have already been turned down by the licensing magistrates. At this stage of his Opposition career, the hon. Gentleman should know that licences—some have not even been considered yet—do not inevitably translate into casinos, as it is a long process. Consents depend on the support of the local authority and local people. This has been a period of great change and the people of this country would be at risk without the new Gambling Act 2005, not because of it.

Tony Lloyd: My right hon. Friend will realise that the people of Manchester will be very pleased with the panel's decision and its recognition of the regeneration impact that it will have on jobs in an area—the city of Manchester—that still has massively high unemployment. My constituents will also be grateful for her words today when she made it clear that there will be tight controls in respect of criminality and problem gambling. Can she guarantee that mechanisms will be available to crawl all over the Manchester casino over the next few years so that the public can see that they are getting value for money with jobs and regeneration and ensure that the social consequences that some people fear simply do not materialise?

Don Foster: I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of her statement and I join her in congratulating Professor Crow and his team on the work that they have done. We should also place on the record the fact that our existing UK casino industry has an enviable international record for probity—a reputation that we must maintain as the numbers grow. After the increases in gambling opportunities and greater risks of problem gambling through fixed-odd betting terminals, online gambling, TV advertising of gaming, pub poker and now more casinos, does the Secretary of State at least understand why people are beginning to think that her Government are addicted to gambling? In the light of those concerns, will the right hon. Lady at least thank both Opposition parties for watering down her original plans for an unfettered increase in the number of casinos? The House will surely have been surprised by her statement just now that the Government "thought it right to be cautious".
	I am delighted to hear that the Secretary of State has categorically accepted that the new casinos announced today will be thoroughly tested for their ability to aid regeneration while not increasing problem gambling before any further casinos are allowed. However, given that the assessment methodology has not yet been determined, will she agree to provide the House with an opportunity to debate it once she has received recommendations from Lancaster university? The 17 new casinos are meant to be the basis for such assessments, so is she surprised that of the 17 announced today, 11 are in areas that already have casinos—including Greater Manchester with 11?
	On problem gambling, given that we spend £270 million on tackling the problems of alcohol addiction, is not the Secretary of State disappointed that the gambling industry is currently contributing only about £2.5 million to the main body responsible for dealing with the problem? Will she ensure that the new casinos make a fair contribution?
	As the hon. Member for East Devon (Mr. Swire) has said, the 17 new casinos announced today do not include the extra casinos that may well arise under existing legislation. Will the right hon. Lady confirm that the Gambling Commission approved 68 new licences in the past two years, and that although some have had premises licences refused, that could lead to an extra 40 or 50 casinos on top of today's 17? Are there not even more applications in the pipeline? How does that square with her statement—even if made in 50 different languages—that she will not even consider allowing further casinos until a proper evaluation has been made on the 17 announced today? Why did a ministerial colleague say two years ago:
	"we can say with certainty that there will be no more than 150 casinos"?—[ Official Report, Standing Committee B, 11 January 2005; c. 718.]
	I wonder how many the right hon. Lady thinks there will be.
	No one in the Chamber—I include the Secretary of State in that—wants much needed regeneration in our towns and cities to be based on the creation of huge increases in problem gambling. So, above all, will she give an absolute assurance to the House that she will stand by the answer that she gave only two weeks ago on "Any Questions", when she said:
	"every singe bit of change in legislation, if it proves to give rise to harm will be rescinded"?
	Will she give an absolute commitment that there will be no further growth in gambling opportunities until we test out what we already have and are likely to have following today's announcement?

Tessa Jowell: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that. I gave assurances about being able to rescind any change in the gambling legislation that is proven on the basis of the social and economic impact study or the prevalence study to give rise to problem gambling. Any such change will be revoked. That is fundamental to the development of the legislation, as he knows; it is not a new concession. I do not want to be harsh on the two Opposition spokesmen, but the person who has really contributed light, balance and intelligence to the debate is the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway), who chaired the original Joint Committee and now chairs the Responsibility in Gambling Trust, which raises money from the industry to deal with problem gambling.
	We have made it absolutely clear—this is in the legislation—that if the industry does not pay the levy that we have determined, we will make that requirement statutory on the industry. My concern is the way in which the intention of the policy is wilfully misrepresented. That causes—quite rightly—alarm in the country. This is legislation that is designed to protect, that recognises the scale of technological change, and that is in the control of local authorities to implement in the interests of their communities. As a matter of honour, hon. Members ought to reflect that in the terms that they use in partaking in the debate in Parliament.

Gordon Marsden: My right hon. Friend will be aware of the great disappointment and anger felt in Blackpool, now that the town that pushed the longest, had the strongest support, and made the most preparation, both in terms of regeneration possibilities and in terms of social responsibilities, has been set aside in the panel's recommendation. Does she understand that concerns are already being expressed about inconsistencies in the report, particularly on the issue of the different criteria for destination and doorstep gaming, and particularly in respect of ignoring the regional context of the recommendations? Will she give an undertaking that the debate on the affirmative orders will include a thorough examination by Parliament of the criteria, and whether they were applied properly, and an assessment of how the effects of the recommendations are to be taken forward, and in what time scale?

Tessa Jowell: I thank my hon. Friend, and again pay tribute to him for the way in which he represented the interests of Blackpool and his constituents throughout the process. I recognise the disappointment felt about the fact that Blackpool was not recommended by the panel. He will, no doubt, want to return to the questions and issues that he mentions, which arose from an initial study of the report, in the debate.

Adrian Sanders: What assessment has the Secretary of State made of the precise number of new jobs that will be created in each of the areas that is to be allowed a licence, and what percentage of those jobs are likely to be low-value employment, and likely to attract only eastern European migrant workers? In the areas concerned, what support will be made available to voluntary organisations and local councils to enable them to deal with the increase in gambling addiction, and what extra resources will go to constabularies to deal with the increase in crime?

Tessa Jowell: The answer to the hon. Gentleman's first question will obviously depend on the way in which individual local authorities take forward and develop the proposals. There certainly are estimates for the increase in the number of jobs. Experience from around the world shows that gambling operators range from being some of the best employers in the world, to being among the worst. One of the reasons why the policy enjoyed strong trade union support is that, based on the evidence of some of the best employers in the American gambling industry, there is a clear understanding that the jobs are good and well-paid. I hope that local authorities will take seriously judgments about the quality of the employment, training and so forth extended to staff in the intended casinos.
	As for the hon. Gentleman's questions about addiction and crime, those issues are fundamental to the oversight of the casinos and the judgment about whether they should be allowed to continue to operate. Without the protective benefits of the new legislation, people are at risk from the vast new range of gambling opportunities that have developed in the past four to five years. Those opportunities are regulated by legislation that was placed on the statute book 40 years ago, which is why we must introduce new legislation.

Tessa Jowell: What I said was straightforward. Although the planning is some way off, we expect that the regional casino will be part of a much bigger complex and development. It will not be possible for children to use the same entrance to go a swimming pool or library as people use to go into the casino. Such separation is part of the way that we give effect to the regime to separate children and gambling.

Julie Kirkbride: The Secretary of State's announcement today will be deeply disappointing to many people across the country. The choice of Manchester heralds the arrival of doorstep gambling across the UK's towns and cities tomorrow, with many people encouraged to gamble more than they can afford or their families can afford. Can the right hon. Lady not recognise, even at this late stage, the superior claim of places such as Blackpool as a resort destination casino, which would be an added boost to tourism? If she cannot do that, can she recognise the deep social change that her plans are unveiling today, and offer Labour Members a free vote when the measure comes before the House?

Tessa Jowell: On the last point, the answer is no. On the point about deep social change, that social change is going on anyway. Every single television and mobile phone, as well as the internet, offer opportunities for gambling which were not available even five years ago. The Government are committed to public protection through legislation that protects the vulnerable, but we recognise that millions of people want to gamble as a legitimate leisure pursuit and should be allowed to do so. That is why we have presented the proposals. It is slightly disingenuous of the hon. Lady to talk about the result being deeply disappointing and then to condemn the Government for exposing the public to risk. We are certainly not doing that.

Graham Brady: I welcome the recommendation of Manchester because it will bring benefit to the city. However, I impress on the Secretary of State that this must be a proper pilot in terms of the possible granting of casino licences in future. Will she assure the House that the progress of the casino in Manchester will be monitored very closely from the point of view of its effect on the local community?

Ben Wallace: Many of my constituents who live and work in Blackpool will be bitterly disappointed that Blackpool has not received the super-casino. The decision sends the wrong message that regeneration in the north starts and stops in Manchester.
	Given that the Secretary of State gave an assurance that she would follow the advisory panel's recommendation before she had read the report, and in the light of some of the contradictory points in it—hon. Members of all parties have brought those out—will she agree to meet me and other hon. Members who represent the Fylde coast to discuss Blackpool and whether anything can be done to ensure that it has a second chance of a super-casino before she brings the order back to the House?

Rob Marris: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make requirements about the monitoring of measures to address the effects of climate change; and for connected purposes.
	I have been waging a campaign on this issue in the House for about a year, in order to get our society and our Government to address much more effectively, efficiently and comprehensively the effects of climate change. Those effects include coastal erosion, higher sea levels and waves, coastal flooding from the sea, flash floods, inland flooding from heavy winter rain, increasing numbers of homes at risk of flooding, more rats, diseases such as malaria, skin cancer and heatstroke, disruption to wildlife, new predators, crop failures and drought.
	Adapting to the effects of climate change should include measures such as: improving sea defences; raising riverbanks; building bigger storm sewers, especially in urban areas; pest control of, for example, rats; NHS training to diagnose and treat tropical diseases with which this country has not hitherto been familiar; public education to avoid heatstroke and over-exposure to the sun; green corridors for wildlife, which will often move north; lessening markedly the leaks from water pipes; new reservoirs; and new rules on planning.
	We have known about greenhouse gases and their consequent climate change effects for several decades. Even nowadays, almost all the debate about climate change, both within Parliament and outside, is about addressing the causes—emissions. The Government have done well domestically and shown real leadership internationally in relation to the causes of climate change, but limiting global emissions is not within the control of any UK Government. Conversely, limiting the effects of climate change in the UK is wholly within the control of the UK Government. Public debate and action, however, has centred on one half of the problem—the causes—which is not within our national control, while it has almost wholly neglected the other half of the problem, namely, the effects, which is within our national control.
	The Government have belatedly started to address the effects of climate change, and I salute the work of the Minister for Climate Change and the Environment. However, much more needs to be done, much more quickly. The effects of climate change are already upon us and will only get worse: we need only look outside. Dealing with the effects of climate change will require significant resources. As the Stern report showed us, however, a stitch in time will save nine.
	Dealing with the effects of climate change will also require cross-departmental co-operation and efforts in many Departments. The Bill, if passed, would simply require annual monitoring and reports to Parliament, so that we can all see what steps have been taken across government, and what steps have not been taken, to address the almost unspoken half of the climate change equation—effects.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	Bill ordered to be brought in by Rob Marris.

David Willetts: I beg to move,
	That this House notes the conclusions reached by Baroness Warnock in 2005 that inclusion has failed many children; further notes the recommendation of the Education and Skills Committee that a major review be undertaken of Special Educational Needs (SEN) provision; further notes the decline in the number of special schools since 1997; further notes that there are currently no plans for a review of the closure of special schools before 2009; further notes that SEN pupils who are not in special schools who do not have statements account for almost half of all permanent exclusions; further notes the non-statutory nature of the new measures to encourage those local authorities planning to close a special school to demonstrate that alternate provision would be better; believes that the inclusion policy of the Government's Removing Barriers to Achievement document encourages local authorities to shut special schools; shares Baroness Warnock's opinion that inclusion is failing many children; further believes that resources in many mainstream schools are not adequate to deal with the SEN children in their care; considers that the initial and in-service training of teachers of SEN pupils should be strengthened; and therefore calls on the Government to follow the recommendation of the Education and Skills Committee to conduct a fundamental review of SEN provision, including the statutory provisions for statementing and meeting need, and to put a moratorium on the closure of special schools until that review has taken place.
	What an extraordinarily statesmanlike procedure the debate will follow!
	The motion reflects the extraordinary frustration and distress felt by many parents of children with special educational needs, and by those children themselves, about what is happening to special needs provision. Those emotions poured out again the other week following the decision by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government to send her child to a private special school. We fully understand her right to do that, we support the decision that she made, and it is not for us to inquire into such a personal decision; but her decision did reveal—and this is a matter of legitimate public debate—the gap between the Government's official claims about the state of special education provision in our mainstream schools and the reality of the tough decisions that parents across the country must face.
	There are, in reality, two very different worlds that clash in any debate about special educational needs. There is the SEN world according to Whitehall, and there is a completely different world, the world as experienced by parents. In the Whitehall world, we are told, everything is calm and everything is orderly, but the real world—the world of which we hear from parents who come to see us in our surgeries—is a world full of the anguish, exhaustion and desperation of those who are entangled in a system described by the Education and Skills Committee, in its excellent report, as "not fit for purpose".

Helen Jones: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that there needs to be a sensible debate about special educational needs provision, but he must get the figures right. As the Select Committee pointed out, in the 1980s and 1990s there was a decline in the number of children in special schools and a rise in the number of children with special educational needs. Since 1999-2000, the proportion of children in special schools, the proportion with special educational needs and the proportion with statements have reached a plateau. I think that if we are to have a debate, we ought to have a debate on the basis of the right figures rather than the wrong ones.

David Willetts: It is a pity that the hon. Lady talked about right figures and wrong figures and then referred to those ratios since 2000, because she should be aware that in respect of the figures for the number of children with special educational needs there is a significant discontinuity in the year 2002-03. Therefore, it is not accurate to quote those ratios because the ratios do not provide a consistent series. The Secretary of State made that mistake—perhaps he is staying away from the Chamber today because he does not want to be held to account for it—and I am afraid it has just been made by the hon. Lady as well.

David Willetts: I will take further interventions after I have made a little progress by setting out my argument.
	We understand that inclusion in education is important and desirable, but we should be clear about what we mean by "inclusion" and "exclusion". One parent said to me of her son that although he is physically included in a mainstream classroom, he is so bullied and he is finding it so hard to follow what is happening in the lessons that in reality, deep down, he is excluded. That very point about inclusion in mainstream provision not necessarily equating with real inclusion was powerfully brought out in an excellent report by John MacBeath for the National Union of Teachers. He said:
	"There was also frequent testimony to exclusion within the mainstream classroom. 'Just being in a mainstream class doesn't mean inclusion', argued one primary headteacher."
	Although we believe in inclusion, all too often the children who are nominally included in a mainstream class are not achieving inclusion. It can be the case that provision in a special school targeted on children with special educational needs is the best foundation for enabling such children to participate and be included in mainstream society as they grow up. Of course we wish to achieve inclusion, but the key question is: what constitutes inclusion?

Angela Smith: Will the hon. Gentleman repeat those words to the Tory Wandsworth council, which will close two special schools later this year, against parents' wishes?

David Willetts: Let me make a little more progress; I am trying to explain what is happening to special schools. I referred to the 146 special schools that have closed since 1997; let us compare that with the evidence on the performance of such schools. Ofsted rates eight in 10 special schools as "good" or "outstanding", and says that only 2 per cent. are inadequate. However, in one year alone—2004-05—26 special schools, which is more than 2 per cent. of the total number, were closed. By way of contrast, Ofsted says that 13 per cent. of normal mainstream secondary schools—of course, there are many more such schools than there are special schools—are inadequate. However, in that same year—2004-05—only 25 secondary schools were closed, which is less than half a per cent. of the total number of such schools.

David Willetts: Teachers with the specialised training needed to teach a child with severe autism, for example, are a specialist resource. I agree that parents ask for people with those skills, but they are much more likely to find them in special schools because that is where they are concentrated. Sadly, the chances of finding them in mainstream schools are much lower.
	The facts are clear, and the Government should accept their responsibility for what is going on. Across the country, local authorities are implementing the policies that the Government have been imposing since their first policy statement on the subject in 1997, which said that
	"we shall promote the inclusion of children with SEN within mainstream schooling".
	On this matter at least, the Government's policy has been consistent. In document after document, they have said that, wherever possible, they want children with special needs to be educated in mainstream schools. That is what the Government's guidance on inclusive schooling is all about; their 2004 document stated that
	"the proportion of children educated in special schools should fall over time".
	That is the Government's aim. Ministers should not try to dispute the statistics; instead, they should admit that we are confronted today with the consequences of the Government's deliberate policy.

Nadine Dorries: I wrote my own minority report. Would the Minister agree with what I pointed out, which is that
	"Parents of children with special educational needs are increasingly turning to the independent and charitable sector to ensure their children receive an appropriate education for their needs."?

John Bercow: I am grateful to the Minister of State, who has been exceptionally generous in giving way. It is always baffling when a brilliant Minister is characterised by a sudden and inexplicable timidity. It is perfectly possible for a group of well-intentioned people from all parts of the House to get together and produce an effective and practical blueprint. The Minister would not need to get rid of the local education authority role altogether if he did not want to; he would simply have to ensure that the LEA was not in position of virtual monopoly. Whatever arguments he advances for the status quo, I urge him not to talk about accountability. Special needs parents do not have great power.

Jim Knight: I shall move on, Madam Deputy Speaker, but as ever, I will bear in mind the comments of the hon. Member for Buckingham.
	Staff training is critical to ensure that children receive the standard and quality of teaching that they deserve and to which they are entitled. The standards for qualified teachers are being reviewed by the Training and Development Agency, as I said, and we expect the new standards to recognise the importance of trainee teachers having a knowledge and understanding of SEN and disability, as well as the skills to vary their approach to meet the needs of individual children. We expect SEN and disability to be a national priority in the framework for continuing professional development. This year, we will introduce the first ever national programme of continuing professional development for staff supporting children with SEN, which will be delivered through the national strategies and will begin with training in speech, language and communication difficulties, followed by training on autism and behavioural, emotional and social difficulties.
	We are strengthening the role of the special educational needs co-ordinator—SENCO—in schools, making it a statutory requirement for schools to have SENCOs and setting out our expectations in regulations. Those developments are in addition to the £1.1m programme with the TDA that I mentioned, which will build staff skills at all levels, from initial teacher training to continuing professional development.
	With our autism working group, we are developing a resource pack for teachers to meet the needs of children with autistic spectrum disorders.

Jim Knight: I cannot give the hon. Lady a response now, but I will drop her a line if we are unable to give her an answer before the end of the debate.
	Access to specialist support is essential to enable all children with SEN to make progress, so we are supporting the development of regional centres of expertise and promoting collaboration between local authorities and other agencies to provide for children with the most complex needs.
	We are piloting a trust model, drawing in private sponsorship, to help train specialist teachers in dyslexia. The hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth), who is no longer in his place, mentioned a school that he used to represent. These specialist teachers will make a real difference not just in their own schools, but in families of schools.
	Parents rightly want to know how their children are doing. We are improving accountability to parents by making better data available to schools through a common data set to monitor and evaluate children's progress. This means that parents can see how each child's progress compares with that of their peers, and make judgments about any additional support that should be put in place. We are encouraging schools to discuss this information with parents at meetings each term.
	Finally, we will improve the quality of parent partnership services and strengthen the "arm's length" nature of their relationship with local authorities by setting clear expectations for the way in which such services are provided.
	Real progress can be made only through a sustained long-term programme of action. I hope that I have illustrated that commitment today, and that I have done justice to the comprehensive system of support that we are building—a system that will deliver real improvements for children with special educational needs and their families, rather than the stop-go policy of the Opposition, which seeks to stall all improvements in reviews and moratoriums.

Sarah Teather: I begin, perhaps a little unusually, by thanking the Conservatives for using one of their Opposition days to debate this important topic. It is useful for us to have time to discuss such matters in detail. Notwithstanding the relatively brief debates that we had in the course of the Education and Inspections Bill, since our last major debate on the subject on the Floor of the House two significant reports have been published that have been highly critical of the Government's provision—the Education and Skills Committee report and the Ofsted report on inclusion. Those reports follow hard on the heels of reports by Ofsted in 2004 and by the Audit Commission in 2002, which highlighted serious flaws in standards and access to provision for children with special educational needs.
	I agree with much that is in the text of the motion. It touches on many of the issues that I shall raise in relation to the training of staff and the need for the Government to review their statementing process. However, as I said in an intervention on the hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts), I regret the framing of the debate, which is polarised between provision in mainstream schools or provision in special schools. By polarising the debate in that way, we are in danger of missing many of the more complex failings in the provision of education for children with special educational needs, which many parents come to discuss with me in my surgery. I often laugh at the fact that the hon. Gentleman has a habit of writing comments with which I agree, but when he speaks he has a tendency to talk me out of supporting him. I shall attempt to resist that urge today and be more conciliatory.
	I shall deal later with the Government's inclusion agenda and the Conservatives' proposal for a moratorium, but first I shall make some general points about the quality of education in all settings. At the end of my remarks, I shall speak about the reform of the statementing process and the financial support that goes with it.
	Let us be clear from the beginning that that the division between mainstream and special schools is crude. Children can learn in a variety of settings—in a mainstream school, with additional support; in a mainstream school with a specialist facility; in a mainstream or special school with additional part-time support at a unit elsewhere, such as the Hope Centre in my constituency; at a special school co-located with a mainstream school; or at a special school. Collaboration between mainstream and special schools is possible and desirable, albeit that it does not happen often enough. I therefore fear that the debate that we have had so far is rather a false one.
	The key issue, as highlighted by innumerable reports by Ofsted and the Audit Commission, is that of quality—or a lack of it, or at least variations in it. Variations in quality exist between and within different types of school. Sadly, there is good and bad provision in mainstream and in special schools, and bad provision in either is unacceptable. For me, Ofsted's most damning statement about education for children with special needs concerned the low aspirations about, and poor understanding of, what constitutes good progress for children. Why should children with special needs be short-changed on standards and rigour? Critical to the success of children in all schools, whether mainstream or special, is the quality of teachers and the quality of leadership. The level of expertise and training is the key factor in standards in schools, regardless of type.
	The Government failed to respond to many of the Select Committee's criticisms, but I am pleased that they at least responded to criticism about the training of the work force, as the Minister outlined. That is welcome, but I suspect that we have a long way to go. Last September, I spent a day shadowing teachers in Manor special school in my constituency, and one of the things that shocked me was the amount of time that senior management are required to give to training staff—all staff, not only teachers—who work within a special school setting. Many arrive with no prior knowledge of special educational needs. The burdens of headship are very great in any school, but greater still in a special school, where the leadership team are required to take such an enormous role in staff development.
	Many children with moderate or severe learning difficulties also have complex medical needs that a school must deal with effectively. For those children, as well as for many others with primarily physical disabilities, seamless working with the local health service is essential. It is therefore an issue of enormous concern that many local authorities find their joint working with the primary care trust pushed to breaking point as PCTs try to find any service that they can cut to cost-shunt on to councils in order to meet the impending deadline to clear their deficit. In my own local authority, since last September the PCT has, without any consultation, withdrawn speech and language therapy from 160 children and reduced occupational therapy provision to special and mainstream schools by 50 per cent. It now proposes to decommission music therapy for autistic children and mental health services for young people with a learning disability. There is a real danger that short-term cost cutting will have an impact that will last a generation, and I dare say that the situation is not unique to Brent.
	Let me turn to inclusion. It should go without saying, although it has not been said enough so far, that the key to good provision is that it is child-centred and focuses on the whole child and the family's wishes, not on the disability. A child with special educational needs is as unique as a child without special educational needs, and though two children may have very similar diagnoses or statements, they may require a very different type of educational setting in order to thrive. However, that approach is surely at odds with a policy objective clearly aimed at placing children in mainstream provision and reducing the number of places at special schools.
	The Minister said that the Government do not have such a policy. However, the 2004 special educational needs strategy, "Removing Barriers to Achievement", clearly states that the proportion of children educated in special schools should "fall over time" and that there should be a "reduced reliance on statements". The Special Educational Needs and Disability Act 2001 and the 2001 SEN code of practice outline a similar approach. If the Government have changed their policy, as the Minister claims, I wish that they would simply come clean and say so. As the Select Committee observed in its report, if they are saying that they play no role whatsoever as regards local authority reorganisation or decisions to close schools, that is surely an abdication of responsibility. The Government set the national framework. If they have changed their stance on inclusion and now favour—as the Minister for Schools says—a broad continuum of flexible provision, which I hope that most hon. Members welcome, they should make that clear to local authorities, which have to interpret the strategy on the ground.
	I do not agree that education in a mainstream setting has failed so many children so badly. Education in mainstream schools, without the sort of expert support and high quality specialist teaching that Ofsted noted and to which I referred earlier, has done that. That failure to support inclusion leads to exclusion in an inclusive setting. Lack of teacher training and support led to the appalling mistreatment of, for example, Jade Chambers, who was restrained 45 times in six weeks. Such lack of training and expertise leads so many children with communication difficulties to go undiagnosed. The frustration of those children, which is inevitable if they do not receive appropriate support, leads far too many of them to develop the sort of behavioural problems that make exclusion inevitable, too.
	Between 20 and 30 per cent. of children with autism are excluded from school for precisely the reasons that I outlined. We are failing those children badly. Lack of support, appropriate training and adequate leadership makes bullying children with SEN inevitable, as the Warnock report stated. That was possibly the most depressing statement in the report. It is a depressing admission of failure to say that it is inevitable for a child with SEN to be the victim of bullying.
	Inclusion has all too often been treated as the cheap option. The root of the problem lies with the flawed statementing process and financial constraints on councils. The Select Committee was right to be disappointed with the Government's response to its report. It was hardly the first to point out that the statementing process is flawed, yet the Government have refused to review it. Like many Members of Parliament, I meet countless families in my surgery who are battling to get the help that they believe that their child badly needs. The lengthy, bureaucratic, highly adversarial process leads in many cases to a long-term fracturing of the relationship between the family and the local authority. That relationship is essential if they are to work together to get appropriate education and care for the child.
	My party is considering reviewing our policies on the matter, but I am sympathetic to the arguments that the Select Committee and others made for a clear division between the body that advises on need and the body that provides the resources to meet the need. My sympathy for that derives mainly from my work in science policy before I was elected. Many of the crises that developed in scientific aspects of public policy began with a loss of confidence in expert advice because one cannot clearly delineate the point at which expert advice ends and political decision making starts. For expert advice to be credible, one needs to separate carefully fact, expert advice and policy based on that advice. One needs to be able to track an audit trail through all the stages involved in making a decision, with clear accountability lines at each point, to pick up on the Minister's point. For the same reason, I have always felt uncomfortable with the conflation of the roles in the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence of ruling on the efficacy of a treatment and determining its cost effectiveness. That problem causes much anxiety.
	We cannot continue with a process that allows local authorities to delay statementing for as long as possible or draft statements in imprecise language to lessen the expense on the authority. I understand the Minister's point that separating the roles may create a mismatch between those defining need and the budget that must pay for it. However, if we separated the roles, perhaps we could have an honest debate about how big the budget should be, instead of continuing with rationing based on the extent of parents' motivation to fight the system. If the statement of need were separated from the payment of resources, we might be able to break the trap that leaves many children to begin the battle again every time they move house. That applies especially to families in temporary accommodation, who may move from one local authority to another, and looked-after children, who are especially vulnerable.
	That point brings me to the question of resources. Hon. Members will know that, in general, I support the delegation of funding from central Government to local government. However, the situation that we are discussing today is analogous to the commissioning of specialist services in the NHS, in that we need to find a practical and pragmatic way around the issue of hard-to-predict or rare and expensive cases. It plays havoc with the budget of a small local authority if a child requiring high levels of support moves into an area in the middle of a financial year. If we had a central pot from which to support such cases, the pressure on local authorities would be much more manageable. As I have said, my party is looking at these issues at the moment, and we will bring forward more detailed policies shortly. I only hope that the Government will do likewise.
	As I said at the outset, I have great sympathy with much in the text of the motion that we are debating today. However, I thoroughly disagree with the Conservatives' proposal for a moratorium on the closure of special schools. Ofsted was quite clear that there is good and bad provision in special schools. A moratorium would effectively make it impossible to close a school with poor facilities or poor standards, or to rebuild the school or move it to a unit co-located on a mainstream site. Nevertheless, we will support the Conservatives today because we support the substantive points raised in their motion and their call for the Government to review their provision for special educational needs, and perhaps also because we could not support the self-congratulatory and rather complacent amendment tabled by the Government. The Government's record on this issue is lamentable and their response to the Select Committee report was woeful. It is time that they responded properly.

Andrew Smith: I welcome the opportunity to debate provision for special educational needs. I am proud of the progress that has been made in the past 10 years, often with the support of Hon. Members on both sides of the House. Indeed, this is a subject about which the public are especially impatient with partisan point scoring, both because it is obviously an area in which personal and professional experience and ideas are not confined to party lines, and because effective policy demands co-operation between central Government and local education authorities, regardless of political complexion.
	This is also an area in which debates on matters such as mainstreaming versus special schools have often distorted the reality, as the hon. Member for Brent, East (Sarah Teather) has just said. It is pretty obvious to most people that we need special schools and mainstreaming, and that we will get the best choices and the best outcomes where there is close collaboration. That is the position set out by the Disability Rights Commission in its briefing for this debate, and it is the view of the overwhelming majority of concerned parents in my constituency.
	Progress on inclusion is being made in our area, hand in hand with special school provision. A high proportion of special schools in Oxfordshire are co-located with mainstream schools, increasing the chances to mix. The number of tribunal cases is low, and has halved to 20 over the past four years. Contrary to the argument in the Opposition motion, in Oxfordshire there have been no special school closures under successive Administrations for decades. It is true that the excellent Ormerod school for physically disabled children is now technically closing, but its special circumstances illustrate an important and positive point—it has had falling numbers because parents and their children have chosen mainstream provision. However, it is being changed into a special needs base and will continue to admit physically disabled children while also taking on those with other needs—notably related to communication and autism—from whom demand is increasing. There was not a single objection to the change. I have also checked the numbers relating to special schools in the county. In April 1996 it was 916, and in April 2006 it was 915.6, which demonstrates a quite remarkable stability.
	However, on important questions of special needs choice, availability and collaboration, there is one specific and pressing challenge facing pupils, parents and the local education authority in Oxfordshire on which I want to focus. Alone among English education authorities, Oxfordshire has no post-16 provision in special schools. Thirty years ago, the LEA decided to develop post-16 provision exclusively in further education colleges. I am not knocking the education provided in our FE colleges. Many students transfer successfully, and many parents and Ofsted are satisfied with their support. Equally, however, many parents, especially those whose children have more complex needs, are unhappy. Indeed, the time approaching transition is often a period of enormous anxiety, and it is easy to understand why. Special schools in the county have a good record of providing education in a particularly supportive environment, in which those who might find it difficult to make their way in mainstream surroundings develop the security and confidence to make the most of their abilities.
	Two special schools inspected last autumn—Ormerod and Frank Wise—were assessed as outstanding. Two more—Fitzwaryn and Northern House—were also given top grades, and Iffley Mead special school in my constituency is good and improving. Indeed, I presented awards for the young enterprise business projects in central Oxfordshire on Saturday, and Iffley Mead school was one of the few state schools represented—its project won an award. Yet, at the age of 16, Oxfordshire students have to leave these supportive schools, with their more sheltered provision, and move to the environment of an FE college. These colleges are often some distance from their homes, have more students, and have a social ambiance which, with the best will in the world, will not always be easy for a student with complex special needs. It is recognised that such colleges are not suitable for some students, but that means that their parents have to make the case not only for alternative provision, but for out-of-county provision. In general, Oxfordshire has one of the highest levels of provision for in-county SEN, yet nearly half of those who are educated out of county are post-16, at a cost £1.4 million a year, because their needs cannot be met within the county.
	Parents campaigning for change in Oxfordshire have worked through a very effective voluntary organisation, Choice, which is committed to disabled young people post-16 being offered the same educational choices as those without disabilities. The county council and learning and skills council responded by commissioning a review by Dr. Matthew Griffiths. The review set out options for the future, and Choice conducted a consultation with parents, who overwhelmingly favoured special school-based provision.
	The LEA decided to support the principle that
	"school based provision should be provided as soon as possible",
	and last month agreed interim proposals to enable some courses for some pupils beyond 16—those with the most complex needs—to be taught in their existing special schools from this coming September, even though the pupils would be on the roll of the FE college, effectively sub-contracting back to the schools. This is a step forward, and while there have been fears over whether responsibility would lie with the school or the college if something went wrong, the council has made a commitment that each pupil will have a document setting out their entitlement and the way in which parental concerns will be addressed.
	What we really need, and what most parents want, is real choice for children to continue as a school student at a special school—a choice that is available elsewhere but not in Oxfordshire. However, the county's proposals are a genuine attempt to make progress by opening up the school route without destabilising the FE provision. The financial implications of all that are that an extra £150,000 will be required in the next financial year, rising to an additional £1.1 million in 2010-11, even if only students with the most complex needs have places in special schools. It would be twice that amount if all special schools had the age range extended to 19. There are additional capital costs involved as well.
	Because Oxfordshire is in a unique position in terms of provision, it has ended up in a uniquely disadvantageous position in relation to funding. No one is suggesting the Government have deliberately brought that about—the situation is clearly a product of the very unusual trajectory that provision in Oxfordshire has taken. On the one hand, the county's grant from the Department for Education and Skills through the Learning and Skills Council is very low because it has historically spent less on post-16 special needs students, because they went through the FE route; on the other, the further education colleges only receive funding in line with colleges elsewhere, despite the fact that in Oxfordshire they are effectively providing special schools on their roll. As a result, county officers advise me, Learning and Skills Council funding for post-16 special needs in Oxfordshire is £15 per head of the 16-to-19 population, compared with a national average of £63 and an average of £48 for our "statistical neighbours" among other shire counties.
	Therefore, there are crucial questions for Ministers to answer. As Oxfordshire grows special school post-16 provision into the system, will funding be increased to a fair level comparable with other areas? Will those who continue in FE, whether through choice or compulsion, get fair financial provision compared with their peers in other areas who are in schools? There are basic questions of equity that must be addressed. In November, I wrote to the Secretary of State to seek a meeting with an appropriate Minister on that matter, and I hope that in his reply my hon. Friend will tell me both that Oxfordshire's unique position is recognised and that he will be pleased to have an early meeting with me and other Oxfordshire MPs to examine those questions.
	Special educational needs provision in this country has come a long way in recent years. There is still more to do, as we heard earlier, to ensure that every child can readily access the educational, social and psychological support that they need. While there is much good progress to be pleased about in our area, with more special needs students getting qualifications, assessments completed on time, and much good special needs provision helping young people to fulfil their potential—and let us not forget to praise the teachers who are working with the young people to achieve that—there are issues of fair provision and funding post-16 that must now be sorted out.

Henry Bellingham: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I do not want to speak any more about my case, because the House will get bored quickly, but I also deal with a large number of constituency cases, and I am left to conclude time and again that the local education authority puts every conceivable obstacle in people's way at every turn. The LEA is not driven necessarily by the primacy of the needs of the children; it can also be driven by the cost implications of the statement. The extra intervention and help will always have a cost implication. That is why our proposal takes a great deal of pressure away from the LEA through the setting-up of a funding agency, and enables the child to take that funding stream with him or her to either a mainstream school or a special school.
	That brings me to the issue of special school closures, which has been discussed at some length. There is no question but that special schools do a superb job. I understand that they are six times less likely to be classed as inadequate, and yet they are three times more likely to close. North-West Norfolk has two special schools The Alderman Jackson school caters for children with special needs ranging from those who are seriously disabled and who require 24/7 attention day, in and day out, through to those who are still disabled and have serious special needs but on a more moderate scale.
	Ethel Tipple school is in the same part of King's Lynn, not very far away. The pupils range from those with mild special educational needs to those with moderate SEN. Many have come from mainstream education: typically, they have been in mainstream education throughout their primary careers. When they move to secondary school, they find it difficult to keep up. They may end up being bullied, or distracting the class. The attention that they received as a result of their statements in primary school, in smaller classes where other children may have had less inclination to pick on them, enabled them to settle, but they find it difficult to settle in secondary education and consequently move to Ethel Tipple school, where some have been given back their confidence and self-esteem and, as a result, have returned to mainstream education.
	Our local education authority is now obeying the instructions of the Minister's Department and is merging the two schools. To be fair, there will be a brand spanking new school on the site of Ethel Tipple, but Alderman Jackson school will close. All the special-needs children, including those who are seriously disabled, will be taught in the same school. Of course I look forward to the new school opening in due course, but I think that the jury is out. We are moving into uncharted waters. The process of closing a school that was able to give hands-on attention to children with serious special needs and disabilities and moving them into a general special school will be fraught with problems. I hope and pray that it works, but obviously it will be a question of waiting and seeing what happens as we step into the unknown.
	Speech therapy is a vital part of the whole early-intervention process. I understand that 58 per cent. of children who have speech and language therapy written into their statements receive it. Time and again I meet parents in my constituency whose children have speech and language therapy written into their statements, but do not receive it. I recently met a group of North-West Norfolk parents from the spectrum group allied to the Norfolk branch of the National Autistic Society. There is mixed provision for their children, most of whom are on the autistic disorder spectrum. They range from children who are completely non-verbal to those with mild dyspraxia, mild dyslexia or mild autism.
	One of the recurring themes at that meeting was the total inadequacy of speech therapy provision. Charlie is six and is totally non-verbal. He is in mainstream education. His statement entitles him to full provision of speech and language therapy, but he has received none whatever. Tom is also six and also in mainstream education with a statement. He is articulatorily dyspraxic, and his speech is very poor indeed. He was promised four days of speech therapy per week, but is only receiving two days. He is slightly luckier than Charlie, who receives none at all.
	The problem is very simple. A few months ago the primary care trust decided to keep a speech and language therapy position unfilled until the new financial year because of pressures on it. A letter that I have received from the county council explains that the problems caused by reconfiguration of the PCT have led to many difficulties. Another big problem is the extent to which the local education authority liaises with and talks to the PCT. There are lessons to be learnt. The good news is that the post is to be filled, but there will be a backlog—a legacy—of problems.
	I hope very much that we will approach this issue on a non-partisan basis. The public are very irritated by politicians who are too confrontational about it: they expect us to be pragmatic, innovative and imaginative. I hope that the Government will listen to Members throughout the House.

Barry Sheerman: Yes. As long as the tests are the right ones, I think that early use of them is very important. As the hon. Gentleman knows, I have visited a school about which he is passionate, and I agree with what he has said.
	Both the statementing process and the appeal process must be fast. If personalised learning means anything, and if we are to learn anything from it, it must relate to special needs. That is the very heart of personalised learning—indeed, the best personalised learning in special needs is the model for what we eventually want for every pupil. Such personalised learning is crucial for children with challenging conditions.
	We must also look at costs. We have underrated that issue, and it has not been alluded to in the debate. The cost of failing to identify problems and of not providing proper provision must be considered. That leads to many children being excluded from school. The figures in that respect are very worrying; I think that I am right in saying that 27 per cent. of those excluded have special educational needs. Exclusion is expensive. Although it is expensive for a young person to get special provision within a particular framework, it also becomes expensive if that young person starts truanting or gets involved in crime. We should also consider the NEET category—those who are not in education, employment or training. A high proportion of NEETs—as high as 80 per cent. in some areas—have a history of special educational needs. My Committee also conducted a prison education review last year. It showed that about half of the people in prison have a history of poor education, lack of education and special educational needs. Therefore, the cost to our economy and to society is great.
	If those conducting an inquiry do it right, they do not write it themselves; instead of dreaming it up, they listen to people out in the world. Members of my Select Committee read the evidence and take account of the oral evidence and go on visits, but we also listen. If a Committee gets things right, it picks up a resonance, and we then report that resonance—we write it down and tell the Government about it. We faced great difficulty in breaking through the usual suspects—all the pressure groups and the people who want to abolish all special schools and those who do not want to close any. We listened to voices from such extremes but we did not accept what was said.
	However, we did listen carefully to parents; we did so as much as we could. Indeed, one Saturday afternoon I even went to Hampton Wick in the constituency of the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) and listened to 120 parents who told me in no uncertain terms about what it was like to have a child with special educational needs. I was told that in some cases that means that they have a child forever, and about what happens at 16 and 18 and when education runs out, and about what happens when there is no work or no special provision—and about how the woman in such circumstances has often been deserted by her male partner, and she has to look after that child until he is 40 and then 50 and so on then until her own life is finished.
	The catalogue of stories that I heard revealed to me that if we do another special educational needs inquiry—we always find that there is another inquiry that should be done—it should be on provision for those post-16 years of age. My right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) highlighted that in the case of Oxford. In terms of profound special educational needs, we need to take a careful look at what happens to children when they reach 16, 18 and beyond.
	Finally, we discovered something very disturbing. What is happening in our society that leads to increasing numbers of children suffering from very serious and sophisticated problems in terms of the ability to learn? Let me refer to autism. The spectrum is increasingly becoming understood; it is a wide spectrum, and there are some especially worrying features. Why do six times more boys than girls suffer from some form of autism? We did not have time to probe that.

Brooks Newmark: Like many colleagues in this House, I have a child with significant special educational needs. I have also been a school governor at two schools where I was responsible for special needs education, and for the past 20 months many people have come to talk to me about the issue.
	Given that communication is one of the crucial tools for children with special educational needs, we all know that speech and language therapy must be at the core of what they require. As the Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists has said,
	"without shared communication, there is automatic exclusion and isolation".
	The Government's aspiration for inclusion for all children is admirable, but, unfortunately, their policy of removing barriers to achievement is not working.
	I wish to talk briefly about my son, Max, because his experiences and what I, as his parent, have gone through are instructive. He is 14 years old. For the first nine years we tried very hard to keep him at the same school as his three other siblings. Unfortunately, year after year his confidence went down. We struggled; we fought with the school to keep him, and it played ball with us by keeping him there. Unfortunately, in the end neither Max nor the school could cope, so we moved him. We were lucky; we were able to move him to a specialist school. Over the next four years, he improved dramatically—his self-confidence in particular improved—and last year, when he was 13, we were able to bring him back into the mainstream. The problem with the current system is that there is no flexibility for children who do not have parents who have the ability—perhaps such as me—to fight hard for their children and who have the financial wherewithal to move their children to specialist schools. Many of my constituents cannot even articulate the problems that their children have.
	However, for children without severe needs, the Government's strategy has been working. Many schools in my constituency do a great job for children who do not have significant educational needs, such as those with dyslexia. Mainstream schools now have the ability to help to support children with such special needs. However, Baroness Warnock has said—and I must agree with her—that special educational needs
	"has come to be the name of a single category, and the government uses it as if it is the same problem to include a child in a wheelchair and a child with Asperger's, and that is conspicuously untrue."
	Unfortunately, for children with severe needs, the system seems—for whatever reason—to be failing. Schools are shutting down, and there is a lack of qualified teachers to help children; there are even staff cuts. Last weekend, I met one of my constituents, Pauline Hicks, whose 9-year-old daughter, Darcey, is severely deaf. She showed me a letter that she had received from the speech and language therapy manager of Mid Essex primary care trust to the head teacher of her daughter's school that said:
	"I am writing to let you know that our service is currently undergoing a review following changes in the NHS and as a result of staff shortages. This means we will be offering a restricted service."
	Because of a lack of resources there is now nowhere for her to take her daughter to receive the support that she needs. The problem is that, with the best will in the world, if the Government want to deliver on their objectives, they must put in the necessary resources.
	Chapel Hill school in Braintree was in a very poor area. It went into special measures, and when it did so, I decided to become a school governor. Of the children attending Chapel Hill, 42 per cent. had some form of special educational needs, yet when I arrived there was not a single special educational needs teacher. We eventually found one who had had six weeks' training, but it was too late. The school had to close and the children and the community were ultimately broken up—in some families three children ended up going to three different schools.
	Southview school, another excellent school in my constituency, has just built a beautiful new building, yet the Government have made its task of kitting it out more difficult by ending the excellent communication aids project. The problem is the lack of consistency in Government funding. There is no point in funding for one or two years; there must be consistency.
	However, the biggest challenge, as we heard from the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman), is statementing. Although most of our children learn their ABC, children who need statementing—and their families—are learning a less benign version of the ABC. It begins with "Assessment", goes on to "Bureaucracy" and ends with "Complexity". This is a big issue.
	As the report of the "Parliamentary hearings on services for disabled children" said of those with special needs,
	"Access to statements should not be used as a means of rationing resources nor should a statement be used as a reason to deny services".
	The Education and Skills Select Committee's report on special needs identified
	"an inbuilt conflict of interest in the system"
	and recommended that
	"The link must be broken between assessment and funding".
	The problem is that the system involves reverse engineering. The approach taken is, "Let's figure out what pocket of money we have today—what pool of money—and let's see how we can allocate it", instead of putting children's needs at the front and centre. I therefore ask the Government to conduct a fundamental review of special educational needs that puts the child's needs first and foremost.

Angela Smith: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. Indeed, I was about to say that it is important to distinguish in this debate between the Government's general policy approach to special educational needs and the specifics of how authorities are implementing SEN policy. The statement is at the heart of that process. We should always remember, in trying to evaluate how well we are doing in delivering the best possible services for children with special needs, that local authorities are responsible for developing SEN practice.
	Government policy on SEN is clear; "Removing Barriers to Achievement" emphasised the continuing role of special schools and stressed the need for a flexible range of SEN provision, with special schools acting as centres of excellence for spreading good practice across all maintained education provision. That, to some extent, is why I do not understand the position of the hon. Member for Brent, East (Sarah Teather) and her party, who say that they will vote with the Conservatives on the moratorium. Our policy is to encourage a broad continuum of provision, and anybody who disbelieves that will have to explain why Sheffield has been awarded substantial capital funding in the past five years to build five new special schools.
	We are building those five new special schools because our previous provision, which was located in a particular part of Sheffield, was in the wrong place and that meant that children living in the far north of the city were travelling great distances to get to school. Anybody who has dealt with children with special needs knows that travel to school is one of the biggest and most difficult issues in terms of SEN policy. It takes some children in Sheffield an hour and a half to get to school in the morning. That is why we have to redevelop our provision, and why a moratorium would be disastrous for my city. As a result of it, we would not be able to close down the old schools and build new ones in the right places, in order to give our children the best possible chances in the education system. Moreover, three of the new schools will be close to mainstream provision, thereby making it easier to offer a really flexible range of learning opportunities for students. In many cases, a mix of mainstream and special provision is best. Even in the mainstream sector, my city is developing integrated resources and the usual mainstream provision for special needs students.
	On top of all this, the city's schools are expected to work together to deliver for SEN kids on an individual level. The point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) was the important one. If we get personalised learning right for SEN children, we get it right for all children. If we get learning right for children with dyslexia in state schools, we get it right for all children. I have taught English post-16, and I have taught people with dyslexia. If a person with dyslexia needs yellow paper in order to read more easily, everybody in the class should have handouts on yellow paper. That improves outcomes for the dyslexic individual, and does nothing to harm the learning of all the other children in the class. It is not rocket science—we can do it.
	I am convinced that the Government have got the right strategic approach, but they also have a responsibility to ensure that local authorities and schools deliver the best possible learning opportunities for all children with SEN. There is no doubt that we have further work to do on that point. Too often parents complain that in the cases of non-statemented children—the issue of dyslexia becomes more relevant here—provision in mainstream schools is poorly developed and inconsistent in application. That is why the Government were right to respond by promising more effectively trained SENCOs; an entrenchment in schools of personalised learning, so that all children can be catered for; and more rigorous internal monitoring and evaluation by school of pupils' progress.
	Making it mandatory for SENCOs to be teachers is critical. There is no point in having teaching assistants as SENCOs in schools. Teaching assistants do a fantastic job, but being a SENCO is a job for a teaching professional. It is a key leadership role and the use of teachers in that role is right.
	We will have to await the impact of the Government's measures in terms of improving the delivery of SEN education for children in the classroom, but what is certain is that parents are the key. They should be fully involved, and any decent school will fully involve parents in putting together the individual education plan for their child. Parents should be involved in monitoring and encouraging progress, but we also need to think afresh about how to strengthen even further the voices of parents with SEN children in the system. What does a parent do when the LEA refuses to believe that a school is doing something wrong? The parent goes to the governing body, which sides with the school. As a cabinet member for education in a local authority, I received letters from parents of children with special needs, complaining about schools. It happens in all authorities. I would demand that something be done and the officers would say, "You are the LEA, so you have to defend the school." Incidentally, one good thing about the Education and Inspections Act 2006 is that it separates the schools from the local authorities and makes those authorities the champions of parents in terms of challenging schools to deliver for SEN children. However, we still need to do more and I challenge the Government to find new ways of breaking the cycle of powerlessness that parents experience when things go wrong in schools. They are the first ones to know, and we should always listen to them when they say that things are not right.
	The contribution from my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) about post-16 provision was right. It is woefully inadequate. Sheffield has the same problem as Oxford, and we have children going over the border to Derbyshire because most of the post-16 provision is in the local college. The college does its best, but if there is an argument for pastoral education for the general range of 16-plus children, there is even more of an argument for making that sheltered provision available for special needs kids—

Parmjit Dhanda: No, as I have only a little while left.
	The debate has not covered the amount of investment that the Government have made available. Ofsted has reported improvements since the publication in 2004 of "Removing Barriers to Achievement", our long-term SEN strategy. For example, the percentage of children with SEN who do not achieve at least level 3 in maths at key stage 2 has fallen from 28 per cent. to 25 per cent. between 2003 and 2005. For English, the proportion of children with SEN who do not achieve at least level 3 has fallen from 31 per cent. to 27 per cent. That shows that the Government's policy is making a difference in terms of attainment.
	Those improvements reflect the increasing investment that the Government have made in provision for children with SEN. Local authorities' indicative spending on SEN rose to £4.5 billion in 2006-07. Of that total, £1.3 billion is delegated to maintained special schools, and £1.8 billion to mainstream schools. Budgets for special schools are rising by 23 per cent., from £1.1 billion to £1.3 billion.
	The hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) talked about statistics, and about the effect on parents of the statementing process. When considering the context, it is worth bearing in mind that of the 1.3 million children with special educational needs, only 3,215 have gone through the SENDIST—special educational needs and disability tribunal—appeal process, and only 332 did so on the grounds that they were not happy with their choice of school.
	In the short time available for my response, I hope that I have been able to get across the facts about the extra money and extra resources that we are putting in. We are making a difference for children with special educational needs, and as Ofsted says, the right time for a review will be 2009-10, when we can effectively measure the differences and changes that we have made. In the meantime, the moratorium that has been mentioned by many Members would result only in the scrapping of new developments and new schools, such as the facilities in Leicestershire and Oldham, so if that is what Opposition Members want, they should bear in mind that it will be on their consciences.

Andrew Mitchell: The hon. Gentleman will know that that matter is currently before the Serious Fraud Office, which will no doubt report in due course.
	It is profoundly unattractive to see the Government careering around the world signing high-minded anti-corruption declarations in international forums, while sanctioning questionable deals back in No. 10. We Opposition Members say that the deal was bad for Tanzania. It undermines public confidence in international development and should never have been agreed by the Prime Minister. Tonight, we look to the Secretary of State to assure the House and the international development community that such events should not, and will not, take place again.

Clare Short: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way. Has a licence ever been refused because it breached criterion 8. In my view, that licence did so absolutely, but I understand that there has been some tidying-up in the Department. Has a licence ever been refused, because it breached criterion 8?

Hilary Benn: I do not know who the hon. Gentleman means when he says "we", but if he is talking about the Government, I emphatically reject the charge that has been made. What I would say to people who have made comment—I must be careful here, in view of the strictures on us referring to it—is that one decision in relation to one case does not make a Government policy. In a moment I shall point out some of the things that we are doing to tackle the problem of corruption arising out of the legislation that we have passed.

Kevan Jones: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. Does he agree that there is confusion about the Government's role, and some hon. Members think that the Government were involved in the negotiation of the deal between the Tanzanian Government and BAE Systems? The role of the Government was to grant the export licence.

Hilary Benn: I shall make progress. I have been generous in giving way.
	Reforming procurement is particularly important in a case such as the one under discussion. The solution to concerns about the suitability of equipment, value for money, affordability or potential corruption is for countries to have sufficient capacity and their own procedures in place to deal with these matters themselves. That is the solution. In the case of Tanzania, these reforms are important individually, but they also complement one another in bringing about a transformation of the public service as a whole—one that is better able to deliver for citizens and in which the Government are held to account. In Tanzania, we are seeing increasing demands from citizens in rural areas for greater sanctions against local officials who misuse resources. We are seeing demands for schools, clinics, water and roads. We have seen increased public demand for accountability. The hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield mentioned the recent demonstration about the radar purchase, in particular, that was organised by Opposition parties in Dar es Salaam. The media have covered the issue, and civil society has added its voice to calls for a thorough investigation. All that demonstrates that in the case of Tanzania, pressure to investigate allegations of corruption in such cases is domestic as well as international. We should welcome that.
	On international action, the UK has ratified the UN convention against corruption and promoted the very successful extractive industries transparency initiative. We are setting up the governance and transparency fund to help those working to improve transparency, we have established the international corruption group, and we are taking on additional police officers working with the City of London and Metropolitan police. Why? To increase our capacity to investigate bribery, corruption and money laundering.

Lynne Featherstone: I thank the right hon. Lady for that very helpful intervention. I was being careful with my words but now, thanks to her, I can perhaps drop the "alleged".
	First, I wish to put on the record the extraordinary work of my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb), whose pursuit of these matters has shone a light into what appears to be an extremely murky world. In an Adjournment debate on 25 June 2002, he laid out the case in detail with clarity and chilling accuracy. I will not repeat the history of that case, because it is already read into the record.
	There is a moral imperative here. If we are to retain any influence, reputation or credibility in world affairs, we must be squeaky clean ourselves. Despite the Secretary of State's defence of the decision to grant an export licence, somewhere between the Government, BAE and Barclays—perhaps all three—our reputation worldwide has been left in tatters. How can we tell other countries to live up to their obligations when $12 million dollars lies in a Swiss bank account as testimony to corruption and bribery in those deals?
	At this particular time in history, when the world is moving, albeit slowly and painfully—as are we, as the Secretary of State said—to tackle defence contract corruption and is striving to introduce transparency, it is vital that the Government answer to their part in what seems to be a very nasty business. While the Serious Fraud Office must pursue its investigations without fear or favour, it is also right that these matters should come before this House.

Lynne Featherstone: The hon. Member for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor) made a valid and interesting point.
	There are three strands to this scandal that I want the Government to account for tonight. The Secretary of State covered some of the ground, but not all. The first concerns the supply of a military air traffic system to one of the poorest countries in the world. One thing that the Secretary of State did not mention was whether he had had discussions with Tanzania as to the fact that only one third of the country would be covered by the system that it was purchasing. The system has been widely criticised, so I want the Government to clarify what questions they asked about the supply of such a system to the poorest of poor countries—as other hon. Members have said, a country to which we were sending aid. Was the actual need for a system discussed? Did the Government advise the Tanzanian Government about the appropriateness of such a system?
	Secondly, the allegations of corruption about the sale need to be tackled more thoroughly. The investigation into the air traffic control contract in Tanzania raises questions about the Government's integrity. Granting an export licence for the military air traffic control system is a scandal. Selling such a system, which costs millions of dollars, to one of the most heavily indebted countries is also a scandal. The Tanzanian air traffic control system deal flies in the face of all that we claim that we want to achieve in aiding poor countries.
	One part of the Government has been providing debt relief on the ground that Tanzania's debt was unsustainable, while another part of the Government appeared to encourage the same country to take on £28 million of debt for an air traffic control system that did not work for a military area that covers only one third of the country.
	As the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Mitchell) said, the International Civil Aviation Organisation put the case plainly. It stated:
	"If it is to be used primarily for civil air traffic control, the system is not adequate and is too expensive."
	The World Bank and the International Monetary Fund estimated that a suitable system would cost between $5 million and $10 million.
	What comprised the Tanzanian air force? As we have heard, it is small. How many military planes did it have? Did the Government ask that question at the time? Were the Government aware of a disparity between the size and sophistication of the system that Tanzania was purchasing and its needs? Even if the Tanzanian Government needed the system, were discussions held in which our Government pointed out that it was not the most appropriate system?
	There are many questions about the funding of the sale. On 15 May 2002, the then Secretary of State for International Development said in Parliament:
	"Somehow, a loan from Barclays bank, which is funding the project—there is no way that Barclays can provide concessional funding—has been reported to the IMF as being concessional, so the project squeaked through, which is very odd."—[ Official Report, 15 May 2002; Vol. 385, c. 763.]
	If that was the case, surely it was fraud. In 2002, my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk referred to "being told" that bungs were paid to oil the wheels of the deal; we now know that there were $12 million dollar bungs. What did the Government know? Did they know anything about it? Did they know at the time? If not, when did they know?
	The Government have tried to assure us time and again, and stated that they promote responsible business conduct. Only last Wednesday, in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood), the Secretary of State for International Development spoke about the UK anti-corruption plan, and how the Government intend to promote responsible business conduct in developing countries and support international efforts to fight corruption. I am sure that hon. Members of all parties would support that.
	Moreover—and astonishingly—the Secretary of State, as champion of combating corruption, stated that he was not consulted about the decision to drop the investigation into BAE and the deal in Saudi Arabia. Will he be consulted about the issues that surround the Tanzanian deal? The Secretary of State replied on Wednesday that he thought the case had no relevance to DFID, but the Department's White Paper, "Making governance work for the poor", makes it extremely clear that it has.
	Of course the BAE Eurofighter sale, which we are not discussing this evening, has a strong connection with the sale of a radar system to Tanzania because both appear to come from the same questionable background. Both issues have a connection to DFID. Has the Secretary of State for International development been consulted about the Tanzanian case? What was discussed with DFID about supplying such an extravagant system to a country into which we were and are still pouring aid? What role will DFID play in the investigation?
	The whole mess runs the risk of undermining the Prime Minister's commitment to poverty reduction in Africa. Corruption is a key element in economic underperformance and a major obstacle to development and alleviating poverty. The Secretary of State said:
	"Good governance is about ensuring the rule of law... Bad governance can be caused or made worse by the actions of rich countries and their companies. For every bribe taken - there has to be a bribe giver; for every stolen dollar that is spirited out of a developing country, there has to be a bank account somewhere for it to go into."—[ Official Report, 26 October 2006; Vol. 450, c. 1738-9.]
	We now know where the account is—Switzerland.
	The diversion of funds through corrupt practices undermines attempts by Tanzanians to achieve higher levels of economic, social, and environmental welfare. Although I welcome the Secretary of State's comments about improvements in Tanzania, we must be above suspicion in our dealings. A key plank in our international development strategy must be combating corruption overseas. We are already bound by the United Nations convention against corruption and the OECD convention on combating bribery of foreign public officials in international business transactions. We encourage other countries to adopt and enforce those laws. We need to encourage our Government to implement them.
	The modus operandi of BAE Systems and its predecessor companies in Tanzania, South Africa, Chile or Saudi Arabia consistently appears to go against the principles in those international conventions. The DFID White Paper states that corruption damages economic growth by increasing the cost of doing business. It siphons off resources that should go into public services and undermines the accountability of political leaders and officials to their citizens.
	The Attorney-General ran a coach and horses through those rightly high aspirations when he decided to stop the investigation. The example of BAE in Tanzania shows that the Government are preaching, but perhaps not practising what they preach. Did No.10 force the licence for the Tanzania deal through the Cabinet, as has been reported? That is a crucial question.
	Thirdly, let us consider the investigation by the Serious Fraud Office, which should be commended on its determination to investigate the sale of a military air traffic control system to Tanzania. It is extraordinary to Liberal Democrat Members that that export licence was granted. How can we tell other countries to live up to their obligations when our name is being dragged through the international mud? To do so would be rank hypocrisy.

Roger Berry: I believe that the matter needs to be revisited seriously, and I want to deal with that now.
	The Government's amendment to the Opposition motion refers to developing a "methodology" for dealing with criterion 8 issues. I would be grateful if my hon. Friend the Minister were to comment further on that in his reply. I am aware of the user guide and that the UK Government have again played a leading role in the European Union on the issue. I have read the user guide, which provides some helpful ideas about how to apply criterion 8, but I would not go as far as to call it a "methodology". When we review the export control Acts and continue to debate criterion 8, I hope that further time can be given to that issue. If there is a methodology, and I have missed it, I would be grateful if my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State ensured that we see a copy at some stage.
	The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood asked how many times criterion 8 has been used to reject an export licence application by the UK. The answer is once, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said. That raises an interesting question: why, since 2003, have the French Government refused 42 applications on criterion 8 grounds, while we have refused one?
	Before speculation becomes rife in the Chamber, let us consider that important question. When a licence is refused, a denial notification must be circulated among the other European Union member states. Given that if France refuses a licence a denial notification must be circulated among the other EU members, the Government presumably know on what grounds it has refused licences on 42 occasions applying criterion 8 grounds. I should be grateful if they could tell us that at some stage, and also tell us why the United Kingdom has only refused on one occasion.
	I have referred to the user guide which currently provides best practice for the interpretation of criterion 8. In fairness, it should be said that that was initiated by the United Kingdom presidency. Does the United Kingdom follow the best practice in that user guide, and what difference has it made? Why does the guide state that the guidelines
	"are intended to share best practice in the interpretation of Criterion 8... Member states are fully entitled to apply their own interpretations"?
	I believe that criterion 8 is at the heart of the matter. This evening Members have tried to roll together newspaper information about alleged bribery and corruption, criterion 8, Tanzania and all sorts of stuff, but there are distinct issues, and the issue of criterion 8 is fundamental.

Roger Berry: Time? Ah, I see. [Hon. Members: "You have now two minutes."] Forgive me, Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am very slow.
	When the Quadripartite Committee has discussed prior scrutiny, we have not considered it to be our job to look at every licence application. What we have said is that when uniquely sensitive issues, particularly issues such as this, are in the public domain and there is public debate, it would be helpful if a joint Select Committee set up by the House to investigate were allowed to engage in such examination.
	In conclusion—

Norman Lamb: I am pleased that this debate is taking place. In the last Parliament, when the export licence was being granted, I spent a lot of time researching the deal, and a lot of time in correspondence with the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Clare Short). The Conservative spokesman, the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Mitchell), is absolutely right: the Prime Minister should be held to account for what happened in the case that we are discussing, particularly bearing in mind what the right hon. Lady has said. My great sadness is that the right time to hold the Government to account was the time when the export licence was being granted, and I believe that the House failed in that respect.
	I reached the view that the deal was a scandal, and that the decision to grant an export licence was scandalous. At the time, I was sufficiently concerned about the matter to write to the police, urging them to instigate a criminal investigation, but they refused, so it was a surprise to be contacted by the Serious Fraud Office some three months ago, and to be told that it was investigating the deal, but I was pleased to hear that the investigation was taking place.
	Let us consider the basic facts and remind ourselves why the deal was so scandalous. As we have heard, Tanzania is one of the poorest countries in the world. Back in 1997, when the Ministry of Defence was, unbeknown to DFID, giving the deal the preliminary green light under the F680 procedure, Tanzania's external debt was $7.6 billion and its per-capita gross national product was $220. Yet a British company sold a military air traffic control system to a country without an air force worthy of the name, at a staggering cost of $40 million. Recent allegations in  The Guardian suggest that $12 million was paid to a middleman—that is 30 per cent. of the contract price. The International Civil Aviation Organisation, a UN body, stated that the equipment was
	"not adequate and is too expensive".
	The final report, to which the Secretary of State referred, has not been published, and it is up to the Tanzanian Government to decide whether it should be published.

Andrew Rosindell: The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has no truer friends in the world than the Commonwealth of Australia and New Zealand. On ANZAC day each year, members of the all-party parliamentary group for Australia and New Zealand attend Westminster abbey to commemorate this important occasion. On 11 November 2006 you, Mr. Speaker, along with several hon. Members from this House, attended the opening by Her Majesty the Queen of the New Zealand memorial at Hyde park corner, three years to the day after the Australian memorial was inaugurated by Her Majesty, both standing as lasting tributes in London to the memory of those Australians and New Zealanders who lost their lives fighting alongside British forces through various wars and conflicts.
	The timing of today's debate could hardly be better. As many hon. Members will be aware, Australia day was celebrated only last Friday, 26 January. There was much revelry and celebration by many of the inhabitants of the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Fulham (Mr. Hands). I fear there may be one or two more sore heads next Wednesday, following the Waitangi day celebrations of 6 February in pubs all over Earls Court and the south-west of London.
	The UK's relationship with our antipodean cousins has always been strained by the geographical distance that separates us and places us at opposite ends of the globe. However, distance has been no bar to the very special bond that exists between our three great nations.
	Some people have defined the UK's relationship with Australian and New Zealand as being more akin to brotherhood than friendship. The three countries often fall out over sporting rivalries involving cricket, rugby or sailing, but our people have always shared a common heritage and been bound together by a deep-rooted historical camaraderie. That friendship led our three countries to share the tripartite ANZUK force; although it is now disbanded, that military unit used to be charged with protecting ANZUK interests in the Asia-Pacific region.
	There have been various trade agreements and student and business exchange programmes between our three countries, and we also share the same ideals of democratic governance. Moreover, many school and university leavers from Australia and New Zealand opt to take their gap year in the UK, and vice versa. Perhaps the most significant thing that we have in common is the fact that we share a constitution based on the Westminster model, and all three countries proudly uphold Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II as sovereign and head of state.
	The UK, Australia and New Zealand can be defined as prosperous western democracies and constitutional monarchies. All are characterised by political stability, relatively high incomes, above-average rates of home ownership and long traditions of representative democracy. Why, therefore, should we in the British isles feel guilt about how the relationship with Australia and New Zealand has developed in recent decades?

Fraser Kemp: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the UK Australia Leadership Forum has been responsible for big improvements in the relationship between our countries? It was set up by the two former high commissioners Michael L'Estrange and Alastair—now Lord—Goodlad, and is being continued by the current high commissioners, Helen Liddell and Richard Alston. It met in London for the first time three years ago, and again in Canberra last year, and it brings together politicians and members of the business community. The Prime Ministers of the two countries have added their weight to the meetings, but both our nations face having a change of Prime Minister in the next 12 months. Does the hon. Gentleman share my hope that future forums will benefit from the attendance of the UK and Australian Prime Ministers and their senior Ministers, as has happened in the past?

Andrew Rosindell: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, and entirely endorse everything that he has said. The forum to which he refers certainly adds to the relationship between our countries, about which I hope that all hon. Members feel very strongly. Moreover, I hope that it will improve that relationship still further.
	Some people believe that Australia and New Zealand could have felt let down by Britain's decision in 1973 to join the then European Economic Community and, to a great extent, abandon our sovereign kin. Especially, we deprived New Zealand of its main trading partner, about which New Zealanders have some right to feel affronted. Since then, however, I am pleased that Australia and New Zealand have flourished as independent nations. Perhaps the mother country can now learn something from her offspring.
	Both nations have shown great determination in defending the interests of their own people, internationally and domestically. Australia and New Zealand do not experience the level of violent crime and antisocial behaviour that we in the UK now endure. They do not release convicted paedophiles on to the streets owing to overcrowding in jails, or allow illegal immigrants to commit crimes within their borders.

Andrew Rosindell: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his remarks. Of course, I would not expect the Opposition to agree with everything that I am saying this evening— [Laughter.] I believe that the commonality that we share is something that all parties can build on in the future.
	This is something for which we should be eternally grateful, and should never forget—I refer to the assistance that those countries gave us during the Falklands conflict.
	If the UK were to structure a more formal military alliance with Australia and New Zealand, it would benefit and bolster the already strong exchange programmes that exist between the individual military forces, especially that of the Special Air Service and the special boat squadrons. It would also provide indispensable technological and scientific opportunities to research projects undertaken by scientists in conjunction specifically with navy and air forces from each of the three countries in areas such as the Arctic, Antarctica and the south Pacific. Surely Her Majesty's Government should consider this point when our own military forces are so overstretched, so undermanned and so poorly equipped that it is only because they are the best and most professional military in the world that they are able to cope.
	I touched earlier on the issue of immigration control, and I would like to return to it now, if I may. As all hon. Members are aware, when arriving at Heathrow airport citizens of the European Union are allowed to enter the United Kingdom through one section—an almost unrestricted and uncontrolled area signposted "United Kingdom and EU Nationals". Those entering from countries such as Australia or New Zealand are forced to enter through the section denoted as "Others". We arguably share closer relations and, historically and culturally speaking, have much more in common with Australia and New Zealand, which have stricter immigration and border controls than most, if not all, EU states.
	What message does that send out to our Australian and New Zealand cousins who offer an invaluable contribution to our nation, with tens of thousands who work here legally, who prop up our national health service, who provide for and educate our children in schools up and down the country, who work to maintain the standard of our professional and amateur sporting industries, who sit next to us on the tube every day and who contribute through the inordinate amount of tax they are forced to pay? Will Her Majesty's Government explore the possibility of developing a reciprocal immigration policy with Australia and New Zealand that mirrors the one currently in place between the UK and EU member states? Surely new procedures could be introduced whereby passport, visa and immigration controls are amended to make such a scheme a reality.
	Our common British heritage should count for so much more than it currently does, and I call upon Her Majesty's Government to look again at areas in which our three nations can work more closely together and establish practical ways in which to utilise more fully the unshakeable bonds between the peoples of the United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand.
	In so doing, let us remember the heroism that followed the landings of allied forces at Anzac cove, Gallipoli on 25 April 1915. Let no Member of this House ever forget the bravery of the Australian and New Zealand army corps, who, together with British forces, sacrificed so much in defence of king and country.
	Tonight let the House demonstrate pride at the close association that exists between the peoples of our three proud nations, bound together by language, history, culture, flag and the fact that we share Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II as sovereign. I began my speech by stating that Britain has no truer friends than Australia and New Zealand. Our challenge is to build a trilateral special relationship between these great nations. I sincerely hope that that may form the foundation of a new international policy for the United Kingdom in the 21st century.

Ian McCartney: The hon. Gentleman asks a good question and I give him the assurance that he seeks. A lot of work is done and many exchanges take place—and not just political exchanges, but exchanges between officials in Departments. When I was at the Department for Work and Pensions, dealing with pensions, labour market access and training issues, I had a close working relationship with the Australian Minister, Mr. Andrews, although I had to advise him that my cousin was involved in trying to make his seat a Labour seat. However, that was another issue; we agreed to disagree on that. The hon. Gentleman makes a good point, because such exchanges are among the most important cornerstones of our relationships, and we learn from each other. We have learned much about social policy from our colleagues in Australia and New Zealand, and vice versa.
	The hon. Member for Romford raised the issue of immigration. On the development of our immigration system, now and in future, we are working closely with Australia and New Zealand to ensure that if we introduce any changes, there will be no disadvantage to citizens from Australia and New Zealand. Discussions with the Home Office are currently taking place, in a positive and constructive atmosphere. Australia and New Zealand are priority countries for our new youth mobility scheme, and that is of critical importance. Discussions on that subject are going ahead, and I will write to the all-party group in more detail about them and what they mean.
	On trade, Australia is a more significant market for UK exports than its comparatively small population of 20 million might suggest. In 2005, we were Australia's fourth largest trading partner after Japan, the United States and China. We sell more to Australia than to India or China, and Australia is the UK's fifth largest market for goods outside the European Union. The agriculture, mining, oil and gas, information and communication technology, biotechnology, creative and media, marine, railways, food and drink, recreation, leisure and aerospace sectors all offer significant opportunities for British companies. Wearing my other hat as Minister responsible for UK trade and industry, I view Australia as one of our priority markets. Much of the work that I did when I was in Australia was on developing a strategy with our colleagues there, inward investors and the Australian equivalent of the CBI, an organisation with which I was very impressed. It plays an important role in respect of industry in Australia, and it has a close working relationship with the CBI.
	New Zealand is one of our top 50 export markets for a whole range of goods, including automobiles, tractors and pharmaceuticals. We want to develop trade and investment in that country, and work with it on policies on energy and climate security. We will do further work with New Zealand and Australia in the coming year, to take forward those issues and others. Again, I will write to the all-party group on that point.
	I thank hon. Members for our discussion. Australia and New Zealand are fascinating, and I never thought that I would become a Minister with responsibility for our relationships with them. I have a personal interest in the two countries, not just because of blood relationships or rugby league, but because they are fascinating in themselves. The people are wonderful and have wonderful imaginations, skills, knowledge and a can-do attitude—the very attitude that we have as a nation. As long as I am in this job, I look forward to ensuring a positive relationship with Australia and New Zealand, on every level. Again, I thank the hon. Member for Romford and I will write to him shortly.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Adjourned accordingly at twelve minutes to Eleven o'clock.